O God, who taught the whole world
through the preaching of the blessed Apostle Paul,
draw us, we pray, nearer to you
through the example of him whose conversion we celebrate today,
and so make us witnesses to your truth in the world. (Roman Missal)

Today is the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle. It is also the first anniversary of my ordination as a priest. So I thought it appropriate to say a few words about Paul. I find Paul to be a very complex and interesting person. His writings are sometimes confusing, sometimes polemic, sometimes mystical. Paul can both challenge one’s mind and inspire one’s heart.

By happen stance, in recent months I have revisited my studies of Paul, and found a deeper appreciation for his writings than I had previous felt. If one accepts that Paul wrote all of the books and letters of the bible once attributed to him, he wrote half the New Testament. If one accepts only those letters which the vast majority of biblical scholars consider Paul to have written (the “authentic” or “uncontested” letters of Paul), then he still authored about one quarter of the New Testament! So whether we believe Paul wrote 7, 13, or 14 books of the New Testament, we can certainly agree his influence upon the early development of what was to become the Christian Church was quite large.

A rather indirect way of reading Paul, is as a means of better understanding some of the changes that took place within the early church. Although, calling this the early “church” is somewhat problematic, as this presumes a Christian perspective was in place at that early date. (This is doubtful at best, and it certainly would not be anything we would recognize as today’s orthodox Christianity.) Jesus, was of course Jewish, as was Paul. In fact, it seems safe to say that the vast majority of persons following Jesus would have been Jewish. In this sense, it is very correct to observe that this “Jesus Movement” took place within Judaism, and was another means of understanding and expressing Judaism. I am reasonably convinced that Paul must have died thinking of himself as Jewish. And more specifically as a Jewish Christ Mystic (more about that shortly).

I do not wish to become bogged down in details, but a few chronological markers may be useful. Jesus was executed by the Romans circa 30 ce. Paul’s earliest surviving letters were written between 50-67 ce. Paul was martyred circa 67 ce. The first gospel (Mark) was written circa 60-75 ce; Matthew and Luke/Acts circa 75-85 ce; and John circa 90-95 ce, about the same time frame as Revelation (although written by a different John). The late letters in the New Testament are usually dated by biblical scholars to between 75-125 ce.

A closer examination of the questions of dating the texts of the New Testament, and proposing a chronological ordering of them, took place in a pair of my previous posts:

There are a few primary touch points to pull out of that string of dates:

Paul is our earliest author of the New Testament.

Paul’s authentic letters pre-date the four gospels.

Among the last texts of the New Testament to be written are the Gospel of John and Revelation.

Also among the last texts to be written are many of the letters found in the New Testament.

We may also observe there is an apparent difference of character of texts written in the 50’s vs those written in the 90’s. This allow us to read parts of the New Testament against others, to obtain a sense of how the early church was changing, and how its understanding of itself evolved during the first 100 years following the execution of Jesus. We may most clearly see this in the various letters of the Pauline school. We may see some of this influence in the Johannine school as well, although they are all later understandings of the church, by which time I believe we may properly speak of a Christian Church.

Which underscores another set of touch stones for better understanding the organization of the New Testament:

The “proto-church” prior to the 50’s is best understood as a Jesus Movement, taking place within Judaism.

The “proto-church” of the 50’s and 60’s may be understood as developing into a schism between the Jewish and Gentile Movements.

Both of the above are best understood as separate movements, stemming from a common Jewish Jesus Movement.

The church of the 90’s is best understood as having by that date developed a distinctive Christian Church self-identity.

It is often useful to think of the proto-church of the 50’s and Christian Church of the 90’s as distinctly different from one another. To use round numbers, I sometimes speak of these as the proto-church of the 50’s and the early Christian Church of the 100’s.

So what has this to do with Paul?

The collection of Pauline writings are understood by the vast majority of biblical scholars and historians as ranging chronologically from the early 50’s to the 90’s, and in some cases even later. Clearly, if this is true and Paul died in about 67 ce, he cannot be the author of all the letters written in his name.

It is fair to point out this is hotly debated in some circles. One may find opinions ranging from Paul wrote all of Paul’s letters, to Paul only wrote the seven uncontested/authentic letters. I number among the second group. Therefore, I see several “Paul’s” as contributing to the collection of Pauline texts. In fact, there are at least three or four different Paul’s. And given Paul’s character plays such a large role in Acts, I think it is appropriate to count that as the fourth Paul.

The first is the “authentic” Paul who wrote in the 50’s and 60’s.

First Thessalonians (c. 51 ce/AD)

Philippians (c. 52-54 ce)

Philemon (c. 52-54 ce)

First Corinthians (c. 53-54 ce)

Galatians (c. 55 ce)

Second Corinthians (c. 55-56 ce)

Romans (c. 55-58 ce)

The second Paul is the author (or authors) of the “disputed” or “contested” letters of Paul. Scholarship is roughly evenly divided on these letter, as to who wrote them. It is possible that by this time there was a “school of Paul” which produced these texts, either with the authentic Paul as a contributor, or after his death, but still close enough to feel a close kinship with most of Paul’s central teachings.

Colossians

Second Thessalonians

(Ephesians, which is a “circular” letter, is sometimes placed here.)

The third and last group is the Pseudepigraphic (forgeries) Paul. Almost no one thinks Paul wrote these letters.

Pastoral epistles (letters) of 1st & 2nd Timothy, and Titus

Ephesians (unless one places it in the second grouping)

The fourth Paul is the character represented in Acts. This is clearly not actually Paul, in the sense that when “Paul” is speaking in Acts, the author is writing as all ancient historians did, placing on Paul’s lips those words which the author thought Paul would have spoken in those or similar circumstances. Acts is a secondary source, and we should bear this in mind when Acts is at odds with Paul’s own letters.

These are the various Paul’s. I find this to be highly instructive as Paul is a complex figure, and often misunderstood and even, I feel, sometimes misrepresented. This is one of the reasons “Paul” presents such a divisive bone of contention among some Christians. How are we to read Paul? Did Paul teach we are all one in Christ, or was Paul a misogynist? Are we to seek freedom in this life, or remain slaves? Engage in an active sexual life (within marriage) or should we remain celibate? Do we love Paul or revile him?

Each of these competing views of Paul have an answer.

In some cases the apparent dichotomy is illuminated by understanding Paul better. Paul was an apocalyptic Jew. Among other things, this means he believed in a future bodily resurrection. Not only this, he believed Jesus’ resurrection was best understood as the First Fruits of the wider general resurrection, and that the general resurrection was soon to come. Therefore, it is best to remain celibate and concentrate upon the dawning Kingdom. And for those unable to remain celibate, to marry. Therefore, if a slave it is best to remain a slave. If already married, remain married. What these views have in common is that the end is soon to come (Paul fully expected to be alive for the general resurrection), so there is no point in changing your mundane life; one should instead focus upon the sacred.

I believe we can be certain had Paul known that “soon” meant 2,000-years or more, in some ways his teaching would have been quite different. This is a valid point to my mind, and one of which we should be cognisant.

But all of the above, as interesting and instructional as I personally find it, is not really the most vital and important aspects of what I feel Paul was trying to teach us. I feel the most vibrant and deeply meaningful way of reading Paul is as a Jewish Christ Mystic.

Jewish. Christ. Mystic.

Each of these words is important, and draws us into a closer understanding of Paul. He was Jewish. In fact, he was a pharisee. Pharisee’s have gotten a bad reputation over the centuries. But most basically they were extremely concerned with keeping the laws of the Torah. So much so, for fear of breaking these laws, they developed an even more strict interpretation! But Paul was also an apocalyptic Jew. This meant the end of the present era was to come to an end, and God would bring about a new world.

And what of Christ? Paul himself states he initially prosecuted Christians! (Although that specific term may be anachronistic.) Why? I think the most reasonable explanation is the claim that Jesus had been resurrected, and was therefore the Jewish messiah. This would have been categorically unbelievable to Paul, a skilled Jewish pharisee. Jesus was crucified, and that alone would preclude him from ever being any kind of Jewish messiah. Jesus would have been cursed by God, not raised into glory by God!

But then Paul had his conversion experience on the road from Damascus.

Paul either saw and/or heard the raised Jesus, and this experience totally and completely changed him for the rest of his life! This is when Paul came to understand that Jesus *had* been raised, and this understanding was framed by his apocalyptic world view. Thus, Jesus becomes the risen Christ and is the First Fruits of the impending general resurrection.

And this is where Paul begins to develop his mystical understanding of what role the Christ plays in our lives. I would say this is one of the central tenets of Paul’s mission, as he saw it. This is also my favorite aspect of Paul’s teachings. Central to Paul’s teaching is experiencing the risen Christ in our lives. This may happen in a variety of ways, some identified by Paul and some not.

As a mystic Paul was all about the *experience* of being in the Presence of the Divine. Paul himself had a number of such experiences. This is what I find so appealing about Paul. Whatever we may make of his letters, we can appreciate that he had a number of experiences of Divine Communion. And this is something to which we may all aspire!

Within Paul’s mystical teachings there are two themes which run hand in hand.

The first is of personal transformation. We must put on the mind of Christ, and allow the Christ to live in us, through us, for us to become one in the same with the Christ. The second point is in having this experience of personal connection to the Divine, and experiencing the personal transformation that comes from such an experience, to effect transformation of the world!

*Both* points are very critical to Paul. And I think it is fair to read Paul as saying that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, yet it is each of *us* who must do what we are able to bring this Kingdom into our world. It is a participatory event, in which we are integral members, not inactive hanger-ons!

“Faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13).

This is the light by which I read Paul. When I find a passage which conflicts with these aspirations, and which conflict with his two central teachings of personal transformation and transformation of the world, then I feel confident either Paul did not write that, or we misunderstand Paul’s meaning.

Recommendations for further study of Paul.

I wish to leave this feast day message with two recommendations for the further study of Paul. One is a lecture series about the apostle Paul given by Prof. Luke Timothy Johnson, a former Benedictine monk, and offered through The Great Courses web site. The second is a book written by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, entitled “The First Paul.”

Prof. Johnson holds a very different view of Paul than do I, as he reads all of the Pauline material as being directly or indirectly authored by the apostle Paul. He offers a wonderful and stimulating lecture series which I highly recommend. One of the points I find most interesting turns on a widespread misinterpretation of the original Greek in one of Paul’s letters. He explains this much more fully in his lecture, but the issue concerns faith *in* Jesus or the faith *of* Jesus. As many Christians will recognize, one of these views forms a cornerstone of Christian Faith for a great many Christians! Yet it is based in a misinterpretation of the original Greek.

This is a subtle and to my way of thinking very important distinction. Having faith *in* Jesus really removes us from the process. We cast our “faith” upon Jesus, and therefore we are saved. Simple to understand. But for many, not such an easy thing to accomplish! I think it is fair to say Martin Luther struggled with this greatly in his life! Marcus Borg says he did too. And so have I. (I’m in good company at least!)

Having faith *of* Jesus may be read a number of different ways. In part I believe this is because it is born of a mystic interpretation, and such interpretations are always at least a little misty, if not down right foggy! First, we recognize that Jesus had a tremendous and deep faith in God. In this light, the path to God is not through faith *in* Jesus, but in having the same quality of faith *of* Jesus *in* God! See the difference? *We* are active participants in this process. As I think we must be, if personal transformation is one of the vital keys (as I do).

I relate this to the theme of theosis which is so important to the Eastern Orthodox Church, but which has been largely lost here in the West since the Great Schism in the 11th century. And I also relate this to putting on the mind of Christ, as Paul spoke of so often.

The book authored by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan offers a wonderful collection of insights to Paul! I thoroughly enjoyed it and found it both refreshing and instructive. One of the main themes they paint is that of Paul the Jewish Christ Mystic. I really do think this grabs a hold of something vital in Paul. And I do not think we can really understand Paul without seeing him in this light.

This book is a mixture of solid scholarly historical research, and of developing a sincere appreciation for the Mystical Paul. And we need both. We need to understand as well as we may the world of the 1st century, and we need to read Paul as a mystic, trying to reveal to us what he may of his experience of the Divine, and how we might take part in the spiritual transformation of the world.

“The greatest of these is love.”

If we don’t get that -until that hits us on a gut level- we are missing the whole point of the New Testament!

Offered with blessings,
On my first anniversary as priest,
Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle 2014